Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.15 seconds)
Documents citing Gadda Balaiah And Others vs The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy ... on 25 February, 2013

Sri Raj Kishenji Pershad And Another vs Smt. Swaroop Dhupar And 6 Others on 17 July, 2018

In Gadda Balaiah v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District8, a Division Bench of this Court has already held that the provisions of the Urban 5 (1994) 1 SCC 1 6 (2011) 8 SCC 383 7 (2005) 6 SCC 149 8 2013(4) ALD 725 84 VRS, J & JUD, J C.R.P.No.4935 of 2008 and batch Land Ceiling Act particularly in view of Section 28 of the Ceiling Act would prevail over the Tenancy Act and that even a protected tenant is covered by the Ceiling Act. This is why the protected tenant as well as the land owner conveniently suppressed this information and made the Revenue Divisional Officer exercise a jurisdiction which he otherwise could not have exercised. This is why the suppression assumed the proportion of a fraud.
Telangana High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

Raj Kishan Pershad vs The Joint Collectori, Ranga Reddy ... on 17 July, 2018

In Gadda Balaiah v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District8, a Division Bench of this Court has already held that the provisions of the Urban 5 (1994) 1 SCC 1 6 (2011) 8 SCC 383 7 (2005) 6 SCC 149 8 2013(4) ALD 725 84 VRS, J & JUD, J C.R.P.No.4935 of 2008 and batch Land Ceiling Act particularly in view of Section 28 of the Ceiling Act would prevail over the Tenancy Act and that even a protected tenant is covered by the Ceiling Act. This is why the protected tenant as well as the land owner conveniently suppressed this information and made the Revenue Divisional Officer exercise a jurisdiction which he otherwise could not have exercised. This is why the suppression assumed the proportion of a fraud.
Telangana High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 4 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

K. Rajeshwar Rao, R.R.District vs The Joint Collectori 52 Ors, Hyderabad on 17 July, 2018

In Gadda Balaiah v. Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District8, a Division Bench of this Court has already held that the provisions of the Urban 5 (1994) 1 SCC 1 6 (2011) 8 SCC 383 7 (2005) 6 SCC 149 8 2013(4) ALD 725 84 VRS, J & JUD, J C.R.P.No.4935 of 2008 and batch Land Ceiling Act particularly in view of Section 28 of the Ceiling Act would prevail over the Tenancy Act and that even a protected tenant is covered by the Ceiling Act. This is why the protected tenant as well as the land owner conveniently suppressed this information and made the Revenue Divisional Officer exercise a jurisdiction which he otherwise could not have exercised. This is why the suppression assumed the proportion of a fraud.
Telangana High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - V Ramasubramanian - Full Document

J.Shyam Babu vs The State Of Telangana, Rep. By Public ... on 9 February, 2017

This conclusion on the principle of sub silentio can be taken aid from the expression of the Division Bench of this Court in Gadda Balaiah vs. The Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District which quoted with approval the expressions of the Apex Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur and A One Granites vs. State of U.P. that a judgment sub silentia is not law declared within the meaning of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - B S Rao - Full Document

K.Chandra Sekhara Rao vs The District Collector And 21 Others on 20 November, 2018

In the case of A.Balaiah Vs. The District Collector, Hyderabad District an unreported decision dated 15.12.1982 in W.P. No.575 of 1981 and C.R.P. No.1947 of 1982, this High Court held that a perusal of Section 24 discloses that a wide discretion was given to the authority to entertain the appeal under its discretion. The 30 days time prescribed under Section 24 of the Act is enlarged at the discretion of the appellate authority. The proceedings under Sections 6 and 8 are in the nature of public deliberations and the conversion of tenure of an inam into ordinary tenure has to take place in the public interest. The ordinary test of sufficient cause would not apply in the case of an aggrieved party showing sufficient cause for every day's delay in filing the appeal. Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application as Section 24 itself has given power to the authority to entertain the appeal.
Telangana High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next